You are here

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh

I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the day on climate change even if they only represent the 1 in 3 voters who think climate change is not a problem. That's how FPTP works when there are more than two political parties and the vote gets split. During the 2015 election the Conservative vote stayed mostly the same while the other voters fluctuated between the Liberals and NDP.

I am really tired of political junkies treaing politics as if there is a deep chasm between one political party on the right, 2 or more parties on the left, and that this chasm is so vast and so wide that there is no way a leftie could convince someone on the right to join their team. Let's look at Western Canada as an example. It used to be very strongly NDP. Then 1993 came along, and Reform was able to capitalize on the populist sentiment that the NDP once represented. Now this region is very staunchly Conservative. Furthermore, Conservatives are always trying to appeal to working people and presenting a populist face, while the left just ignores this region. That is a key reason why BC ridings that voted NDP in 2005 voted Liberal this time around in spite of their corruption and that the current NDP-Green coalition is hanging by a weak thread.

Please, can someone on the left come and talk to us Western Canadians? The Greyhound cuts are disproportionately hurting the smaller communities that are key to Conservative victory, and this is an issue just crying out for federal government intervention. Show these communities in clear terms why the public policy programme advocated by the Conservatives is failing, and then maybe we can elect good MPs who will stand up for the communities rather than having to be embarassed to be from this part of the country.

Following each of the four elections that the Liberals have won since 1997 in which they campaigned on reducing emissions every time, greenhouse gas emissions have risen substantially despite these promises. Voting the same way and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity, especially when the Liberals adapt Harper's emissions standards, continue their fossil fuel industry subsidies, provide exemptions on carbon pricing to the biggest greenhouse gas emiiters, and spend billions on fossil fuel projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Further to your point jerry, the Conservatives actually presented emission reduction targets in 2015, unlike the Liberals. If climate change was your issue, then an honest ranking of the parties on that issue would have placed the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals.

I am really tired of political junkies treaing politics as if there is a deep chasm between one political party on the right, 2 or more parties on the left, and that this chasm is so vast and so wide that there is no way a leftie could convince someone on the right to join their team. Let's look at Western Canada as an example. It used to be very strongly NDP. Then 1993 came along, and Reform was able to capitalize on the populist sentiment that the NDP once represented. Now this region is very staunchly Conservative. Furthermore, Conservatives are always trying to appeal to working people and presenting a populist face, while the left just ignores this region. That is a key reason why BC ridings that voted NDP in 2005 voted Liberal this time around in spite of their corruption and that the current NDP-Green coalition is hanging by a weak thread.

I'm a political junkie who loves stats. I always have to check my own memories against the actual results. One needs to look at both the seats and the percentage of the vote to really get an idea of the history of voter swings. During the years that I volunteered in Burnaby-Douglas we saw voters mostly go back and forth between the Liberals and the Conservatives. For a few elections in a row the most popular corporate party candidate was a Liberal and he out polled the Conservatives but not the NDP. When that individual was no longer running the race looked more like the rest of the province in those days i.e. a battle between the Cons and NDP. In 2008 about 2/3's of the votes that left the Liberals went to the Cons and the NDP and Greens both gained about 17% each. I think that most voters switch back and forth between the Cons and Libs but there is a minority that switch between the Libs and NDP/Green.

The NDP lost its BC vote by adamantly taking the wrong side of the Constitutional Referendum. BC voters, like in Quebec, said no way leaving the Centre of the Universe led NDP on the wrong side of history and the majority of NDP voters.

It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

When Conservative voters are treated as this evil unreachable brand of voters by the left, resulting in the left not even trying to talk to them, does that come as a surprise?

When has the left treated Conservative voters as being an evil unreachable brand of voters? When has the left not tried to talk to them? In the last election the NDP even included a pledge to maintain balanced budgeting to attract conservative voters. They also soft pedalled changing Cannabis laws. What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

The dynamics of each province are different but I still think that in actual elections the most common swings are back and forth between Liberal and Conservative candidates.That is if you only look at those that actually switched in an election not what random Canadians told pollsters they would do if they ever did switch.

In the 2015 election the Conservatives in BC and went from 45.5% to 30% in Ont they went from 44.4% to 35%. Drops of 15.5% and 9.6%. The NDP dropped from 32.5% to 25.9% in BC and from 25.6% to 16.6%. Drops of 6.6% and 9%. The Liberals went from 13.4% in BC to 35% and 25.3 to 44.5% in Ont. Gains of 21.6% in BC and 19.2%.

So to recap. In BC the Liberals gained 21.6% and the Conservatives lost 15.5% and the NDP lost 6.6%. In Ontario the Liberals gained 19.2% and the Conservaitves lost 9.6% and the NDP lost 9%.

I guess it shows that in BC about two thirds of voters that swing go between the two corporate parties. In Ontario it seems to be less pronounced.

When has the left treated Conservative voters as being an evil unreachable brand of voters? When has the left not tried to talk to them? In the last election the NDP even included a pledge to maintain balanced budgeting to attract conservative voters. They also soft pedalled changing Cannabis laws. What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

Platform schmatform. Nobody believes politicians these days. Party platforms are great to use as garden fertilizer, but that's about it. I'm talking about starting by having a presence in these communities, along the lines of the Lethbridge Declaration that Niki Ashton proposed in her 2012 NDP leadership campaign. Guy Caron also understands the importance of courting rural voters.

Let's compare countries. In Canada, the left and the NDP has had almost no presence in the small-c conservative areas for at least a decade. In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns. Now in Canada, large chunks of the West and Ontario are safe Conservative seats, out of reach for anybody. In the US, the Democrats are becoming more competitive in red states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. So which of these 2 approaches do you think works?

When has the left treated Conservative voters as being an evil unreachable brand of voters? When has the left not tried to talk to them? In the last election the NDP even included a pledge to maintain balanced budgeting to attract conservative voters. They also soft pedalled changing Cannabis laws. What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

Platform schmatform. Nobody believes politicians these days. Party platforms are great to use as garden fertilizer, but that's about it. I'm talking about starting by having a presence in these communities, along the lines of the Lethbridge Declaration that Niki Ashton proposed in her 2012 NDP leadership campaign. Guy Caron also understands the importance of courting rural voters.

Let's compare countries. In Canada, the left and the NDP has had almost no presence in the small-c conservative areas for at least a decade. In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns. Now in Canada, large chunks of the West and Ontario are safe Conservative seats, out of reach for anybody. In the US, the Democrats are becoming more competitive in red states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. So which of these 2 approaches do you think works?

I think one important difference between the US and Canada is that in the US the Democrats are the default party of the left while here in Canada federally the Liberals are the default party of the left. The Republicans are in control of government in the US and are failing in very many respects so naturally the Democrats are benefitting there by default. Here in Canada the Liberal government's failures are benefitting the Conservatives, the other default party in Canada. Unfortunately this is how our two-party FPTP system seems to be working in Canada at the federal level and how the two-party FPTP system works in the US.

What should leftist parties add to their platforms to attract conservatives?

No more immigrants. Reconsider equal marriage. Support our troops.

That's where the parley goes pear shaped. It's easy to imagine a meeting of the minds if all you're going to talk about is how the elites are taking their munnee, but there's a lot more on people's minds than just economics.

Under FPTP, it's a waste of time and money to campaign in a riding the Conservatives are going to win by 50 points. Under PR, every vote counts (yes, give or take the details of the system), so there really is a point in the left appealing to small and rural communities as well as major cities.

In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns.

Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination. Each state with a given population counts just as much as any other regardless of how the general election vote goes. In fact, as far as bang for the buck goes, campaigning in states where the Democrats are weak is more effective since there are fewer Democratic voters who have to be won over.

Regarding Democratic gains in those states cited, most of it is due to the increasing Hispanic population and the Republicans' abandonment of that constituency under Trump, a complete reversal from their strategy under the Bushes. There is no way the Conservatives or Liberals are ever going to stop courting minority groups, although the Conservatives are willing to write off some smaller ones such as blacks or First Nations.

It seems to me that for at least the last 10 years opinion polls have clearly shown there are many more Liberal-NDP switchers than Liberal-Conservative switchers. Polls over this period seem to show that very few Conservative supporters are willing to switch to any other party. This might change with the advent of Bernier's new party.

The dynamics of each province are different but I still think that in actual elections the most common swings are back and forth between Liberal and Conservative candidates.That is if you only look at those that actually switched in an election not what random Canadians told pollsters they would do if they ever did switch.

In the 2015 election the Conservatives in BC and went from 45.5% to 30% in Ont they went from 44.4% to 35%. Drops of 15.5% and 9.6%. The NDP dropped from 32.5% to 25.9% in BC and from 25.6% to 16.6%. Drops of 6.6% and 9%. The Liberals went from 13.4% in BC to 35% and 25.3 to 44.5% in Ont. Gains of 21.6% in BC and 19.2%.

So to recap. In BC the Liberals gained 21.6% and the Conservatives lost 15.5% and the NDP lost 6.6%. In Ontario the Liberals gained 19.2% and the Conservaitves lost 9.6% and the NDP lost 9%.

I guess it shows that in BC about two thirds of voters that swing go between the two corporate parties. In Ontario it seems to be less pronounced.

The disconnect between polls that suggest to some people that the switchers are NDP-Lib and what you are saying is that these polls are not about switchers but the parties people say they will consider or parties they name as a second choice.

The majority in each party do not switch but when a pollster asks them to say what their second choice is the NDP and Liberals may name each other or the Greens to avoid naming the Conservatives. Most of these people may say they are open to the other or may say that they this is the second choice. This is an indication that many Liberals see the Conservatives as below second choice and the NDP as the second choice. Most of those voters don't actually switch.

So the the majority of Liberals may have the NDP as their second choice but actually never switch while the actual switching goes on among the minority of Liberals who participate in Con-Lib switching.

This is the conclusion you draw when you place the results of switching next to the polls of second choice.

I have named second choice to a pollster many times -- but have never ever voted for my second choice -- so far.

Under FPTP, it's a waste of time and money to campaign in a riding the Conservatives are going to win by 50 points. Under PR, every vote counts (yes, give or take the details of the system), so there really is a point in the left appealing to small and rural communities as well as major cities.

That is a complete misunderstanding of what I am saying. Political campaigns only happen every few years. I'm talking about what goes on in between the campaigns, on the ground on a daily basis. What are left-supporters in the smaller communities even doing in the mean time? Are they organizing around important issues? Maybe they can raise funds by selling t-shirts about something. Heck, maybe even rent a community hall for a social event that tells other lefties that they are not alone and the non-lefties that they are there. I'm not saying these are the perfect magic bullets, but throwing out some ideas. What is the party infrastructure doing during this time? Are they actively trying to nurture grassroots community support, or just relying on flash and image to get them through each election cycle?

In the US, Bernie Sanders went to deep red states to talk to people and listen to them about their concerns.

Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination. Each state with a given population counts just as much as any other regardless of how the general election vote goes. In fact, as far as bang for the buck goes, campaigning in states where the Democrats are weak is more effective since there are fewer Democratic voters who have to be won over.

Actually during the Primaries, Sanders lost by large margins in states like Texas and South Carolina. The Sanders campaign made many calculations about which states to campaign in and which ones to write off in 2016. It was only after the election was over when he had the freedom to travel the country and meet with people and really listen without the pressure cooker of an election campaign that his ideas were slowly able to percolate.

brookmere wrote:

Regarding Democratic gains in those states cited, most of it is due to the increasing Hispanic population and the Republicans' abandonment of that constituency under Trump, a complete reversal from their strategy under the Bushes. There is no way the Conservatives or Liberals are ever going to stop courting minority groups, although the Conservatives are willing to write off some smaller ones such as blacks or First Nations.

The Conservatives did write off First Nations, you're correct about that. The percentage of the population that is First Nations is also growing on the Prairies. Now outside the large metropolitan areas and the far north, how many rural Prairie seats did the Conservatives lose?

My point about going into the communities and talking to people (especially outside of an election time where you have much more time to build meaningful relationships) still stands.

Here is the demographic evidence of the growing importance of the First Nations population and vote in western Canada that over time will increasingly impact election results.

Across Canada, cities are being reshaped by growing indigenous populations.

In the biggest cities on the prairies, and in smaller northern centres close to First Nations reserves, an indigenous population is growing in size and political influence. Already, changes at the local level are signalling a societal turn.

In the last few years, the concerns of many indigenous people, on issues such as murdered and missing women, the treatment of indigenous people in the justice and child-welfare systems, and the enduring impact of residential schools, have been prominent in national and local debates. ...

Look around Winnipeg's downtown and it's clear the city is in the midst of a demographic shift. In the elevated walkways that offer shelter from the legendary winds, it seems roughly half the people shopping, walking or stopping to chat, are indigenous. In fact, more than 70,000 residents identify as aboriginal. Like many the other cities with a growing indigenous population, Winnipeg has seen more than its share of racially charged conflict, but the signs of an increasingly prominent indigenous community are apparent.

Storefronts in Winnipeg's downtown now bear messages of greeting in indigenous languages, ranging from Cree to Dakota, Michif and Inuktitut, distributed by the local business association. At the University of Winnipeg, students who began their studies this year are now required to take a course on indigenous peoples and culture. A community group is petitioning to rename a street in Ojibwe. The national aboriginal broadcaster, APTN, headquartered on Portage Avenue, plans to expand to the United States. ...

Winnipeg is the largest of the 28 cities across Canada where the indigenous population has reached the symbolic threshold of 10 per cent of the broader community (including those rounded up from 9.5 per cent and higher), according to the 2011 National Household Survey.

Just 10 years earlier, in 2001, there were only 17 communities with indigenous populations of that size. The list will almost certainly grow once the results of the 2016 long-form census are available, and not just because indigenous people living off-reserve were among the groups considered at risk of being undercounted in 2011. First Nations and Inuit people tend to have higher fertility rates than the rest of the population: In 2006, it was 2.7 children per woman for Inuit women and 2.4 for First Nations women, compared to 1.8 for Métis women, and 1.6 for the population overall.

The city with the highest proportion of indigenous people in Canada is Prince Albert, Sask., a community of roughly 35,000 located 140 kilometres north of Saskatoon. It's considered a hub for many Northern communities, including 12 nearby First Nations reserves in the Prince Albert Grand Council. Over the decade, the city's indigenous population grew by 37 per cent, far faster than growth in the city overall. ...

NTERACTIVE BY MURAT YUKSELIR, RESEARCH BY RICK CASH / THE GLOBE AND MAIL » SOURCES: STATISTICS CANADA; MAPZEN; OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS; WHO’S ON FIRST

Over the last few years, a number of cities have ushered in such changes. Many places, including Winnipeg and Saskatoon, have declared a "year of reconciliation," responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report on the historical legacy of the residential schools system.

In Prince Rupert, B.C., the city with the second-highest proportion of indigenous people at more than 38 per cent, the school system last year made Sm'algyax language classes mandatory for all children through Grade 4.

In Regina, where the indigenous population makes up one in 10 people in the city, they now fly the Treaty Four flag in front of City Hall. ...

From 2001 to 2011, more than 100 communities of 10,000 people or more saw their indigenous population more than double. In part that's explained by the fact that the indigenous population is relatively young and many move to urban centres for further education or work (interestingly StatsCan found they're less likely than other groups to head to the big three of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver), but that's not the whole story.

In places like Corner Brook, for example, where the indigenous population grew more than 360 per cent, the change goes far beyond what migration and natural increase can explain. Between 2006 and 2011 the aboriginal identity population in Canada grew four times faster than the non-aboriginal population. This is partly explained by what's known as "ethnic mobility," the embrace of a previously unacknowledged indigenous identity. ...

Canada's cities are changing in ways that reflect not only its immigration policy, which has an outsize impact on its three biggest cities, but also the increasing prominence in many communities of its original peoples. In the years to come, as the indigenous population is projected to grow by as much as one million people by 2036, the weight of numbers will bring further change as governments, businesses and other institutions adapt.

If Trudeau had established PR he would be facing the probability of being limited to a minority government instead of being favoured to maintain a majority government. Could that be why he decided to stick with FPTP?!?!??

There seems to be an enduring fallacy that Trudeau had promised PR. In fact his promise was simply to end FPTP, and it was clear that his preference was ranked balloting. Once the Liberals gained a majority the NDP (and Greens) lost any leverage they might have had in getting PR under a minority government. It would have been ranked balloting or nothing. Not to say Trudeau should escape criticism but it should stick to the facts.

..fyi. i've been on niki ashton's email list ever since i supported her in the leadership race. she has remained quite active on a movement level. from the latest email.

quote:

In a couple of minutes, I’m going to announce that I’ll be speaking at an event organized by the Sanders Institute and moving forward, will be collaborating with them. I’ll be off to Vermont from November 29th to December 1st to discuss with Bernie Sanders, Yanis Varoufakis and others what sort of progressive movement we need to organize behind for social, environmental and economic justice.

Here is the demographic evidence of the growing importance of the First Nations population and vote in western Canada that over time will increasingly impact election results.

Jerry, First Nations people participated in the 2015 election in large numbers, but outside of northern Saskatchewan it had no discernable impact on election results. The First Nations popluation in Winnipeg is concentrated in 2 constituencies where the Conservatives are never in serious contention. The seats in Regina and Saskatoon that flipped from the Conservatives to the NDP did so almost completely because of the redrawing of riding boundaries. It's near certain that those seats would have been NDP under current boundaries if they had been in place from 2004-2011. Elsewhere in the Prairies, that just means that areas like Brandon, Dauphin, Melfort, Prince Albert, and Portage la Prairie, instead of going Conservative with 65% of the vote, maybe they go Conservative with just under 50%. The other problem is that if you rely on demographics without addressing economic concerns, that just creates an ugly racist backlash that doesn't serve anyone. That's why the Democrats in the House are suddenly interested in looking at voter supression even though it has been happening for a long time, because they are counting on changing demographics to propel them into office.

I'll give a couple of examples of what I was mentioning upthread. The first is that a couple of people I know who ran as NDP candidates entered a float in a small town parade with the NDP banner. Of course that one intervention didn't change voting patterns at all, however that is an example of out-of-the-box thinking that is needed in these areas. I can also point to the example of Michelle McHale near Steinbach, in the heart of Manitoba's Bible Belt. What is her claim to fame? As a same-sex parent, she took on the local school division over the issue of LGBQT rights and also organized what is now an annual gay pride parade. Being the bible Belt, it goes without saying that conservative support is very high while NDP support is next to non-existent. But there she is, organizing in her community. I hope she runs for the NDP in a future election, and I hope that allows the NDP to build up a base of support that can become competitive in that area.

Some strange quotes from Singh's new Chief of Staff in this article, including:

"He is going to become Jagmeet the candidate,"

"We are doing all the things that you do to get ready for a campaign so I am very confident."

The article also notes that - in relation to veteran NDP MP's opting not to run in the next election - "B.C. MPs Nathan Cullen and Murray Rankin are also mulling their futures during the holiday break."

I suspect Cullen's mulling-of-his-future is whether or not he will step in as a leadership candidate in the (seemingly likely) event Singh doesn't win Burnaby and is forced to step down as leader.

He caused a few noses out of joint with CTV, as he declined to give a year-end interview with CTV Question Period - Despite both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer agreeing to an interview.

Reeks of arrogance to refuse interviews with major media outlets. Also reminds me of Mulcair's choice to not take questions from the media when he launched the election campaign, which was a major mistake.

Here's a largely positive story about Singh, but I think the doom & gloom and housing crisis messages he's zeroed in on are going to flop with the electorate at large, and I also think it's disgusting how he cites several valid cases of job losses or pay cuts but ignores the far-more-massive job losses in Alberta, presumably because he doesn't give a damn what happens to people in Alberta. Or Saskatchewan. Or...?

I also think it's disgusting how he cites several valid cases of job losses or pay cuts but ignores the far-more-massive job losses in Alberta, presumably because he doesn't give a damn what happens to people in Alberta. Or Saskatchewan. Or...?

He did give an interview on CBC Power and Politics and he kept getting pressed on what to do with the oil in the ground. Jagmeet kept talking about clean energy and moving to a cleaner environment. But as it was pointed out, that could take years to develop. So what about the here and now, what to do with the oil in the ground. And Jagmeet kept dodging the question, refusing to answer. In addition refusing to answer if he would give Rachel Notley any money if he were PM

I also think it's disgusting how he cites several valid cases of job losses or pay cuts but ignores the far-more-massive job losses in Alberta, presumably because he doesn't give a damn what happens to people in Alberta. Or Saskatchewan. Or...?

He did give an interview on CBC Power and Politics and he kept getting pressed on what to do with the oil in the ground. Jagmeet kept talking about clean energy and moving to a cleaner environment. But as it was pointed out, that could take years to develop. So what about the here and now, what to do with the oil in the ground. And Jagmeet kept dodging the question, refusing to answer. In addition refusing to answer if he would give Rachel Notley any money if he were PM

Here's a largely positive story about Singh, but I think the doom & gloom and housing crisis messages he's zeroed in on are going to flop with the electorate at large, and I also think it's disgusting how he cites several valid cases of job losses or pay cuts but ignores the far-more-massive job losses in Alberta, presumably because he doesn't give a damn what happens to people in Alberta. Or Saskatchewan. Or...?

While on an individual level I sympathize with people who have lost their jobs, I just can't climb onto the "poor Alberta" bandwagon everyone seems to be on. I can remember when Alberta's economy was booming. Any complaints about economic conditions in the rest of the country were met with, "well, move to Alberta where the jobs are." They were also very voiceferously opposed to any sort of regluation or oversight or royalty and it was all short term greed. Well, some of those regulations or higher royalties would have prepared Alberta for the problem it is facing now. And suddenly, now that the economy in Alberta has turned, they want the federal government to step in and help them get their products to market? So which is it? Should the federal government intervene in Alberta's oil market or not? And people moved to Alberta to find jobs in the good times, why can't Albertans who lost their jobs in this recent downturn move somewhere else where the jobs are better? And please don't quote Rachel Notley in this at all. On the issue of oil development, there is no difference between her and Kenney. Whatever else she has done for Albertans in other areas, she has comlpetely capitulated to the oil and gas industry. While in opposition, the NDP were very critical of oil and gas and wanted to hold them accountable and advocated leveraging that wealth for the benefit of Martha and Henry (I think that was Klein's phrase). She has completely betrayed the trust of Albertans who wanted change.

You want to know what the real problem with Alberta's economy is? It's dependent on a resource economy, and right now they are having difficulty moving said resources to markets. Not only that, but there is termendous opposition to building pipelines that would move oil to market. They need to build a new economy, economy built on other things that are more stable. Where has the federal government been on this file? Who has been calling out the federal government for their lack of action?

You want to know what the real problem with Alberta's economy is? It's dependent on a resource economy, and right now they are having difficulty moving said resources to markets. Not only that, but there is termendous opposition to building pipelines that would move oil to market. They need to build a new economy, economy built on other things that are more stable. Where has the federal government been on this file? Who has been calling out the federal government for their lack of action?

Yes, you're absolutely right - the economy in Alberta needs massive diversification. To do that takes two things: Time and Money. It can't be done overnight. The NDP has been making efforts in that direction, but it would take multiple government mandates and federal assistance to really make it happen.

Edit to keep this on-topic: Instead of ignoring parts of the country that Singh doesn't seem to like, or doesn't think are worth bothering trying to campaign in, he should come up with some solid socialist policies that could drive new industries to grow, to gradually replace the oil industry. Give federal tax breaks to green industry growth in oil-producing regions, or to tech industry start-ups, or whatever other industry is deemed a priority... I recall Audrey McLaughlin had ideas back during her term as leader (probably written about in her book) about targeted industry growth in different regions of the country, in order to help ALL of the country.

Thanks for reminding me why cbc politics is total biased garbage. All the questions and dialogue was to divert away from the liberal failure with China relations. Only once, fuckin once is the word China spoken!

Every person in that clip is a sellout hack! I have no respect for them.

Jagmeet Singh has been leader of the federal NDP party for just over a year and during that time he has seen how First Nations use courts to stop the federal government from trampling over their rights, such as the expansion of the Trans Mountain bitumen pipeline.

Several First Nations believed they weren’t properly consulted on the proposed expansion from Edmonton, Alta. to Burnaby, B.C. and went to court to force the Trudeau government to start over again.

Singh sat down with Nation to Nation to discuss a wide-range of subjects related to Indigenous people and believes there’s a way to achieve a level of predictability.

“We can’t have a Canada that calls itself progressive without ensuring that the nations in Canada, the nations that make up the fabric of the first people of land are not treated as nations and don’t’ have the treaty rights, the land rights, the recognition and dignity that they rightfully deserve,” he said.

“The fundamental principle would be that every piece of legislation should be informed by the free, prior and informed consent principle.”

He said Canada needs to treat First Nations like it would any other country in the world it wants to do business with.

“That’s how we need to look at any agreement that we make with First Nations. They are sovereign nations and should ensure, in a legislative manner, a protection of their sovereign rights,” said Singh.

quote:

“The thing that I was able to appreciate the most, as a leader, is Indigenous communities have the solutions,” he said. “There’s just a lack of listening to those solutions and implementing those solutions. I think more than ever we need to listen to the folks who are on the ground.”

Thanks for reminding me why cbc politics is total biased garbage. All the questions and dialogue was to divert away from the liberal failure with China relations. Only once, fuckin once is the word China spoken!

Every person in that clip is a sellout hack! I have no respect for them.

The CBC 'At Issue' panel made lots of critical comments about Trudeau & the Liberals in that video.

If Singh wins the by-election, and that is no sure thing, the only chance there will be for the NDP to make any sort of a respectable showing will be for him to listen to people like Niki, to the social movements, to the activists. Obviously no NDP leader can ever do everything those voices call for, but it is crucial to connect to them. They are ordinary people, just like the folks in the Tim Horton's-sometimes, they ARE the people in the Tim Horton's-and the economic justice agenda they fight for benefits the Tim Horton's demographic as much as, if not more than, anybody else.

“Selective critical comments” were made so that there’s an appearance of a rounded analysis. But cmon, really, the India trip? All the criticism revolves around Justin wearing traditional Indian clothes in his corporate media circus freek side show selfie queen flop

Meanwhile, one of the most controversial acts of the trade war between the two world economic powers gets absolutely no mention!

And the ghost of Brian Mulroney is resurrected To highlight how to be “successful” in Canadian politics to help prop Justin.

Useless media coverage trying to pass itself off as progressive. Total garbage and waste of time. I only watch it so I can rip it like the predictable brain washing material that the cbc is!